Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 18 April 2019 08:10 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C061202EC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 01:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=c8oRK7km; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=GPjzkdQB
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RexP4sQi-pjT for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 01:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC2EB120253 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 01:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3232; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1555575003; x=1556784603; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=r2tUjO8t+WZZxbsGllNrJT+4QdlP83BBBUp/7gKkEKE=; b=c8oRK7kmSILMZv3QckmxlHG7p/BInaNnlOCq52l1gZj/43Y/fp0mzHwP kpTK7SsmcCEL94EcxyQqbeS3RJqJyq6hZGhdQT+uKyOIBgei8QH1eWx6h l2aafAWTf6ZfaPA6wsb71KN0jEPX8bMolkEoVpzF2GTMsbN+sYKOmRwHb o=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AU2wfOBGmON/EGdLlUTyAJJ1GYnJ96bzpIg4Y7I?= =?us-ascii?q?YmgLtSc6Oluo7vJ1Hb+e4w0Q3SRYuO7fVChqKWqK3mVWEaqbe5+HEZON0ETB?= =?us-ascii?q?oZkYMTlg0kDtSCDBjyJ/PnRyc7B89FElRi+iLzPA=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BIAADPL7hc/4oNJK1kHAEBAQQBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?EAQGBUQcBAQsBgT1QA2hVIAQLKIQOg0cDhFKKQkqCDYk6jWKBLhSBZw4BARg?= =?us-ascii?q?LCoN6RgIXhgIjNAkOAQMBAQQBAgECbRwMhUsBAQMBAQEhEQwBASwMDwIBCA4?= =?us-ascii?q?MAiYCAgIfBgsVEAEBBAESgyIBgWkDDQ8BDp1qAooUcYEvgnkBAQWCR4I3DQu?= =?us-ascii?q?CDQMGgQsnAYtJF4F/gTgfgkw+ghpHAQGBLgESAQktgnMxgiaNLZhiNwkCgga?= =?us-ascii?q?OWoNKG5UEi3eHeowyAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFPOGVxcBU7KgGCQYIOg2+FFIU/coE?= =?us-ascii?q?pjQaCQwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,365,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="552096303"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 18 Apr 2019 08:10:02 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com (xch-aln-014.cisco.com [173.36.7.24]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x3I8A28Z030276 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:10:02 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:10:01 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:10:01 -0500
Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:10:00 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=r2tUjO8t+WZZxbsGllNrJT+4QdlP83BBBUp/7gKkEKE=; b=GPjzkdQBSy7UTeELbXzAzYv9xHbWonnJKKpz49mTLZO+mJiymZpKtr488qwbCqsUtOkM3YmZhf1A6ZsbYgvIpTho3HuKfEOjZLB4M7i9hiBh7leG0i/Wthyly212NOL/uJY6pii0DiIz2Z6NZMe256FYh45ISzrUc7W1ZpQy3Jk=
Received: from BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.112.11) by BN6PR1101MB2081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.113.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1813.14; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:09:59 +0000
Received: from BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9105:38a0:c6b:f455]) by BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9105:38a0:c6b:f455%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1771.026; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:09:59 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix
Thread-Index: AdT0l4zGpLjvUofYRmmSWqlDWwoAHABHw8uA///L8QA=
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:09:59 +0000
Message-ID: <AEA1D9F1-D4A3-46D1-A50B-F4333B0A0412@cisco.com>
References: <003301d4f498$4f593640$ee0ba2c0$@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1904180906360.3490@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1904180906360.3490@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=acee@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c8:1002::6cc]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c0beb844-9f4e-4388-2f45-08d6c3d54070
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BN6PR1101MB2081;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN6PR1101MB2081:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR1101MB20814EA286D65D3D32A38B09C2260@BN6PR1101MB2081.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 0011612A55
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(376002)(346002)(396003)(366004)(136003)(189003)(199004)(25786009)(5660300002)(6506007)(97736004)(6306002)(316002)(6512007)(68736007)(76176011)(82746002)(6246003)(6436002)(229853002)(6486002)(186003)(476003)(2616005)(486006)(110136005)(99286004)(46003)(6116002)(53936002)(11346002)(446003)(966005)(102836004)(2501003)(14454004)(33656002)(478600001)(305945005)(256004)(7736002)(71200400001)(71190400001)(83716004)(8936002)(86362001)(2906002)(8676002)(81156014)(81166006)(36756003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR1101MB2081; H:BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: fYmnl19OU7JWdPoGJw3NXYXauP6Udz7K1hPyfPCUF4XF4Vq81Zd0OB8Ispyh4ic8iYRV9NWVD8eSAcQkOfctIl18NZ+b4FOk3o01n5q/8hZSkLF5+birEwPHePFXYypn9eN+JHXEaLz12gl9WB9MkgQV7oSt/a+q/xrkklhctcnbaIeKbGP6D4ZnhidhKm9D5uL3bC8rt2Y18ccJS1Z9xexMYmhDZobu1or8mojiKksifv+c2z3Z+cHVx4R0vvM5gttffDN6E3aC+acyOZpF2NkvZIt2K+d3gQCoFVCng7PDzQeZvdWsjbdSO/e73r+zgqbdMMf8PJVZuqP5ii5ttcWiBduhzqwVXI+nLV5H+HgbAQdNSs9khTediR8kR4fRcJBdXqVO65MLJweOLiK1iNgxBg5rr5+YN73wkubgiN4=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <9251B17E2F026C49B416FCA525B17B8B@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c0beb844-9f4e-4388-2f45-08d6c3d54070
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Apr 2019 08:09:59.4316 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR1101MB2081
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.24, xch-aln-014.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-5.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/CCYf9GorYneJCs4EfqwV__5q1Og>
Subject: Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:10:06 -0000

Hi Mikael,

On 4/18/19, 3:17 AM, "netmod on behalf of Mikael Abrahamsson" <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:

    On Tue, 16 Apr 2019, 7riw77@gmail.com wrote:
    
    > We might need to clarify this with the libyang folk.
    
    I see that Michal fixed the bug in libyang. Good.
    
    There is another thing I am unsure about.
    
    What is the netconf server supposed to do if a client tries to store 
    192.168.1.1/24 in ipv4-prefix ? Or 2001:db8::1/64 in ipv6-prefix?

Since the constraint on the non-masked portion of the prefix is solely in the description, there is nothing to prevent this and I'm sure the ipv4-prefix and ipv6-prefix types are being used incorrectly.

Thanks,
Acee

    
    Reading the canonical format description in 6021 one might intepret that 
    the netconf server should just truncate the host bits and store these as 
    192.168.1.0/24 and 2001:db8::/64 ? This means the netconf server actually 
    stored something else than the client tried to commit (the resulting 
    uint32 and uint128 will have different information than was commited by 
    the netconf client).
    
    Or should the netconf server throw an error if the client tries to commit 
    data that is not according to the bit pattern described in the canonical 
    format?
    
    I guess I am getting confused by the "canonical format" term being used in 
    IPv6 for describing the ascii representation of the value, but both in 
    IPv4 and IPv6 it's also used to describe how the bits should be set (and 
    not be set) depending on prefix/mask.
    
    Also, the IPv4 canoncical format representation doesn't describe at all 
    the ascii representation, so for instance 192.168.001.001 would be valid 
    according to 6021. I haven't seen this to be a problem in reality though, 
    because IPv4 addresses are typically "compressed" the same way, all the 
    time. If we're revving 6021, then perhaps some text about ascii 
    representation format should be to use the format used by the posix 
    function inet_ntoa() ?
    
    -- 
    Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
    
    _______________________________________________
    netmod mailing list
    netmod@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod